Archive for house democrats

I've been noticing a lot of articles in my daily Los Angeles Times about the gubernatorial race here in California. They've mainly covered a couple of GOP candidates, one being whackadoodle and State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly. The other is Neel Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury official and the guy the Republican establishment favors.

In a speech a few years back, Donnelly described undocumented immigrants as "an insurgency," and compared crossing the border to war.

Whoever wins would face Dem Governor Jerry Brown, who is expected to win re-election in November.

Roll Call's post explains why this gubernatorial race could result in a boost to House Democrats:

A controversial Republican gubernatorial candidate in California could cause the GOP headaches in down-ballot House races in a state crucial to the party’s hopes of increasing its House majority.

So his offensive anti-immigration 'tude could light a fire under Hispanic and other Democratic base voters. And if that fire is lit, those voters may very well make bee lines to the ballot box in an election that usually has low turnout.

Their fear is that the increased turnout to oppose Donnelly could in turn boost the re-election hopes of vulnerable House Democrats and even improve the party’s chances to add to its ranks in the already Democrat-heavy delegation. A consultant with ties to Kashkari is among the Republicans sounding the alarm.

“It would be a fucking disaster,” said Jason Roe, a San Diego-based consultant who has worked with numerous congressional campaigns and whose firm is consulting for Kashkari.

We have three branches of our government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. But according to history and an article in BUSINESS INSIDER, we almost had a fourth. Oh, and this one's a pip. Today the Republicans would be jumping all over it regarding Obamacare. But I get ahead of myself.

First the background. This story comes from Business Insider and is part of the commemoration of the upcoming 226th anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution (Sept. 17th if you're curious). According to the article, Virginian, James Madison felt there was still a problem with the balance of power. He feared that the will of a majority-directed legislature would swamp the decision-making and oversight powers of the executive and judiciary.

Madison's solution? The Council of Revision.

The Council would comprise elements of the executive and judiciary, and would have the authority to, "examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, & every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final."

The dissenters to this proposed fourth arm felt that it would turn judges into lawmakers. Hmm. How interesting. 226 years later, some would say that's exactly what did happen.

A vote was taken to create this new branch but it was narrowly defeated, 4-3.

So, a council of revision. Boy, a chance for a do-over. Wouldn't that be grand. I bet today,with the current political climate, it would be used as often as the Republican filibuster. Nothing would get done.

Come to think of it, even without that forth branch, nothing seems to get done. And if you were thinking it could be a good idea, consider this. A council of revision was added to the French government in 1958.

France?! That alone should tell you it was not a good idea. If history tells us anything, the French could use another branch of their government but it would be called, nous nous rendons "We Surrender." For that and Bouillabaisse, the French are best known.

House Republicans voted down the minimum wage proposal unanimously, so feel free to thank them. But some of that gratitude should be extended to the six Democrats who joined them. Here are their names:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa even endorsed including a same-sex marriage plank in the national party platform.

Today, according to The Hill, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said that there are “mixed views” among House Democrats....

“But a vast majority of our caucus is where Biden is."

With so many groups and prominent individuals openly supporting marriage equality, and polls showing that more and more Americans agree, more pressure is being exerted to add it to the 2012 platform... which puts the president in the uncomfortable position of either frustrating gay rights voters or their opponents.